Thursday, March 30, 2017

There was a fascinating moment on the BBC news channel yesterday afternoon, when Professor John Curtice raised (with much more seriousness than most commentators have done thus far) the possibility that the Scottish Government might hold a consultative independence referendum without Westminster permission, and pointed out that Alex Salmond had proposed to do exactly that when he was first elected to minority government in 2007. The interviewer Huw Edwards noticeably shut him down very hurriedly and said "leaving that option aside, what do you think the SNP will do..?"

Without wanting to indulge any conspiracy theories, there did seem to be a determination from the BBC throughout yesterday to weave a narrative that Theresa May is Scotland's overlord, and if she says no, that's the end of the road. On Sarah Smith's propaganda video (I use that term advisedly) for the evening news programmes, we were shown pro-independence demonstrators bursting into tears upon hearing that Holyrood had voted to hold an independence referendum - tears of joy, we were told, that would very soon turn to "disappointment" when the individuals concerned got real and accepted that Theresa's No Means No. It didn't even seem to occur to Ms Smith that one reason the demonstrators were so happy may have been that they simply do not recognise the BBC narrative, and instead fully expect the Scottish Parliament to take all steps necessary to implement its own sovereign decision.

I've been trying to read the runes on what Nicola Sturgeon may be minded to do if she continues to be met by total instransigence from the most authoritarian Prime Minister since Mrs Thatcher. I do take seriously the assessment of Brian Taylor and others that it's "unlikely" she would sanction a referendum without a Section 30, or an early Holyrood election to seek an outright mandate for independence. That may very well be an accurate representation of her thinking at the moment...but then again I'm increasingly finding myself wondering whether her current thoughts are actually the most important thing. There are so many people caught in a Section 30 trance, and who chant like a mantra that an Edinburgh Agreement-style process is the only proper way of doing this, but when you ask them how that can even happen if Westminster keeps rejecting it, you generally draw a blank. It is surely inconceivable that any SNP leadership will accept for an indefinite period that London can just veto an exercise in Scottish self-determination, and so if Theresa May doesn't budge, simple logic will tell you that they'll eventually consider the other options, even if they themselves do not yet realise they will. It's a straightforward 'unstoppable force meets immovable object' scenario, and something has to give. The idea that we're all just going to obediently pack up and go home because London isn't in the mood for a referendum is, to use the favoured expression of a Downing Street source, "for the birds".

Don't forget that this is a moral issue and not just strategic. Many people voted No in 2014 in good faith, after being told that it was the only way of retaining their EU citizenship. An overwhelming majority of the Scottish public then voted to retain their EU citizenship last June. If we tacitly accept May's ability to veto a referendum, even just for a few years, that citizenship is going to be stripped away from those people for a prolonged spell, in blatant contravention of the immaculate double mandate in favour of EU membership that has been obtained. That is unacceptable, and I see no particular reason why we should accept it.

* * *

Events have moved so fast that our vocabulary hasn't quite caught up with them, and it's high time we updated the way we characterise certain political parties. Scottish Labour, for example, should now quite properly be called an anti-European party - not in the sense of hating Germans or Italians, but in the more prosaic sense that they oppose our participation in European institutions. There is no Labour proposal to reverse Brexit, and of course they dogmatically reject the only option that could keep Scotland in the EU after Brexit occurs. They've gone all the way back to a position they last held in the 'longest suicide note in history' - their 1983 general election manifesto under Michael Foot. They are separatists. They want to build walls. They think that what divides us from our European neighbours (ie. devotion to Blighty at all costs) is more important than what unites us.

It's interesting to recall that, in the immediate aftermath of the EU referendum, some senior Scottish Labour figures did publicly ponder the idea of seeking a solution that might keep Scotland within the EU family in some form. In retrospect, they only seem to have done that because they were briefly terrified that they would be faced with opinion polls showing an irresistible tidal wave in favour of independence, and in favour of a second indyref. The fact that they ditched their pro-Europeanism as soon as they thought they might get away with it shows just how shallow their internationalist values have always been. Dugdale, Baillie and Hothersall - the New Brexiteers. It's been quite a revelation.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, are no longer pro-Europeans, and are instead Euro-ambivalents. They nominally want to remain within the EU, but only under wildly implausible circumstances. If they don't get exactly the solution they want, it seems they will reluctantly accept Brexit, at least for the time being. That will put them in a very awkward position come the next indyref, and indeed the next Westminster and Holyrood elections.

101 comments:

This is beginning to resemble past independence from England efforts. Ultimately, when you look back, it is obvious that it is the English inability to respond in a respectful way with common sense compromises that eventually leaves people no choice but to force a way to freedom.

Well of course there must come a next move from the Scottish govt. the Scottish parliament has voted for a referendum. As Westminster refuses this will have to be pursued another way.

You write as if this hasn't already been strategised by Sturgeon and team. Surely they saw the likelihood of Westminster's refusal and have carefully worked out options to deploy? They have shown themselves more than capable of outplaying Uk govt at every turn. I'm sure Sturgeon's announcement of a response next month will confirm this.

The intriguing question is what is our best option now to maximise chances of winning independence. It would be good to have your thoughts on this, James

"You write as if this hasn't already been strategised by Sturgeon and team."

Well, if we believe Brian Taylor, it hasn't been strategised beyond campaigning for a referendum, then campaigning some more for a referendum if that doesn't work, and then campaigning some more for a referendum if that doesn't work. I would hope there's a bit more to it than that, but I can only guess.

"Immediately, after the Brexit vote, she said a further referendum on independence was "highly likely". She has used variations of that formula since. Interviewed by me, she acknowledged that more recent developments made it "all but inevitable".

My theory, and there's a bit of a wish in it, is that she's run through this scenario with the EU when she had those meetings last year. Possibly the EU will force TM's hand in this, because from their point of view, how can Brexit negotiations take place when it is unclear who is Brexiting? The EU could insist on clarity via-a-vis Scotland and Northern Ireland before completing negotiations. This would certainly be true of the new trade deal - how can the U.K. negotiate with Scottish fishing waters if they might not even own them anyway? Remember, they haven't ruled out a referendum, just having one 'now'.

Could the EU make new trade negotiations contingent on the status of Scotland and NI being confirmed?

It would now appear that 2022 is the likely date for the UK to be able to exit the EU. That fits far better with the 2021 sweet spot that many have argued since 2014 would be our preferred Indyref2 date. I wondered if the Scots were aware of that well before last week?

As often as they give us the "once in a generation" guff they should be reminded of Thatchers opinion that a simple majority of Scots MP's was enough. Ms May, on the back of Labour incompetence and three more years of propaganda - from the BBC & newspapers to the ubiquity of union flags these days - is likely to win an election in the south. We need to try to secure all our seats in Scotland and just leave.

I can grasp the mandate that would be conferred by a referendum agreeing to independence. But if the yoons are just going to gerrymander the result again - which is why we are continuing to fight at all - then I see no reason to accept that route as the final arbiter at all.

Agreed, I can see the Belgian chief negotiator for the EU looking around the British delegation and pointedly asking where the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish are.

Also as soon as May tries to bargain away our fisheries for eg the response will be either 'you may not own them soon' to 'when the Scots Vote Yes we will get access to them for free, so why should be we pay you for that?'.

They may also insist on the accounting being done in duplicate or even triplicate accounting for the possibilities of Scotland leaving the UK and Irish Reunification. I'm not sure if that would increase or decrease Westminster's Brexit bill but our European friends might just make things so uncomfortable for Theresa that she relents on our referendum just for some peace in the negotiations in Brussels.

Christ, even Tory MSP Annie Wells said she accepted that the Scottish people are sovereign. Who on earth said they were in favour of the Westminster model? It is making a global laughing stock of itself at this very moment. The UK government do not have the slightest fucking clue what they are doing.

Sorry the Scottish people voted to remain in the Union the Nat sis said we are stupid. Sovereignty is not recognised by the Nat sis and moreso Knickerkess,...She hates the English and despises the two million Scot who told her and Kim Jung Eck tae fuck aff.

Much as it hurts to say it, I somewhat agree with Theresa May on this one.

If I'm going to be asked to vote on Scottish Independence again, I'd like as much information as possible about what I'm voting on. If the Brexit deal is awful (which I suspect is the most likely outcome) then I'm going to be more interested in walking away and trying to rejoin as a Scottish citizen, rather than a British one.

Likewise, I'd like to see ScotGov take a decent length of time and put together a really comprehensive analysis of what independence is going to mean for us. Currencies, International Credit Ratings, Pensions, impact of EU and UK law (Patent Law for example is highly relevant to me), Visas, cross-border issues with rUK et al.

While we could technically reverse any vote, the reality is that independence is likely to be permanent. So rather than repeat the Brexit idiocy and have people voting blind, give us as much information as possible.

Do it right rather than do it quickly, and hopefully more people will be happy to accept the result, no matter which way it goes.

It will be pretty clear by the end of two years if the negotiations have failed from a UK point of view. And if they fail, you really want to spend a few years experiencing how horrible it's going to be before you vote to get out? I (obviously) find that a bit baffling.

We're going to spend a couple of years outside the UE no matter what happens.If an early vote could stop us leaving the EU, I'd be more agreeable. But given that doesn't seem to be the case, then I'd like to get a good look at my options before someone sticks a ballot paper under my nose and asks me to make what is likely to be a permanent choice.

I'd also like more than just Yes and No on the ballot paper, for what it's worth. But we'll see what happens there. Last time around it was the UK who wanted 2 answers and ScotGov who wanted three. I suspect that position might be reversed now for both parties.

If they put it on the ballot paper as an option and people vote for it, then yes. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable stance.

Given we're roughly 50-50 right now, and Brexit negotiations are hardly likely to shore up the No vote, I could certainly see someone in the UK govt deciding that it's better to have half a cake than risk ending up with none at all.

Of course these are the same people who are pushing for hard Brexit, so assuming common sense on their part might be a bit generous.

If you are agreeing with Mrs May that " now is not the time" can I suggest that most Independence supporters would agree. However, "now" is not what Nicola was suggesting. In her compromise proposals she was trying to argue for "all of Scotland". When this was ignored she then went for a Holyrood motion to take to WM for a Section 30 order so that an independence referendum could be held when all, or at least the major points, of the Brexit deal had been agreed with the EU and we could then cast our votes with a deal more knowledge than was offered in 2014...

"Likewise, I'd like to see ScotGov take a decent length of time and put together a really comprehensive analysis of what independence is going to mean for us. Currencies, International Credit Ratings, Pensions, impact of EU and UK law (Patent Law for example is highly relevant to me), Visas, cross-border issues with rUK et al."

To be frank, Unknown, I honestly don't know how much clearer you can get on those issues than "Scotland's Future," which still has greater detail, analysis, and information than practically the entire literature of Better Together and both sides of the EU referendum campaign. Indeed, some people criticised it for being too definitive and party-political for what was a constitutional vote.

"We're going to spend a couple of years outside the EU no matter what happens.If an early vote could stop us leaving the EU, I'd be more agreeable. But given that doesn't seem to be the case"

Where do you get "couple of years" from? Every EU figure who's said Scotland would have to rejoin has emphasised that it would be swift and simple: given East Germany joined the European Community in less than 2 years, it's hard to see why a country that's already adhered to EU law for 40 years would be much more than that. And in any case, surely you can see the obvious difference between being out the EU while in the process of rejoining, and being out the EU as part of a country that doesn't want back in at all?

"then I'd like to get a good look at my options before someone sticks a ballot paper under my nose and asks me to make what is likely to be a permanent choice."

If we have the vote after the UK leaves the EU, then we're leaving EU citizens at the mercy of the UK government. Remember the entire reason we even have a Scottish Parliament is twofold: to stem the cause of independence, and in adherence to EU law. Since the first has proven ineffective and the latter won't apply with Brexit, the UK Government will do everything they can to gerrymander the franchise.

To be frank, I don't know how you can possibly still be undecided at this point, even in a Devil's Advocate sort of way. Nonetheless, I admire your candour, and hope whatever way you vote, you feel you've made an informed choice.

In politics people have to respond to circumstances - or as Harold MacMillan said, 'Events, dear boy, events'.Things change and we have to respond to these changes. The UK Government and the media seem to be putting across a narrative that there will be the EU negotiations, these will be implemented and people can take a considered view before voting for independence. In an ideal world, all very neat and logical.By using the Henry VII powers the UK Government will be able to neuter any attempt at challenging their right to tule.Undoubtedly, political strategists of all parties, 'game' various scenarios, to be able to respond to changes, but these only take them so far. Sometimes they have to fly by the seat of their pants and push situations in particular directions and sometimes you have to sit and bide your time.

The end game will be a National Convention with Scotland declaring independence the way many EU members such as Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovenia, Croatia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia became independent.The Scottish Government are going through all the necessary protocol at the moment. I would refer anyone with a passing interest to Craig Murray's post of the 17th of this month.

If staying in the EU was the only way to ensure a general election victory for the Labour party then they would be screaming from the rooftops to stay in the EU. That's all they care about, electability in London.

If the Tory position is that constitutional power lies with Westminster and that those powers are not circumscribed at all then surely the appropriate solution is for the 56 to resign and then hold 56 by-elections where they stand on a one-line manifesto: either pass the Section 30 order or begin independence negotiations. It would be all but impossible to argue about mandates then.

Kenny, that would only work if polls showed support for independence at 70 per cent or so at the present time. They don't, so by resigning and then having 56 by-elections, with Scotland split at around 50-50 for and against independence, you would likely get more unionists elected. So therefore you would likely be doing massive self inflicted damage to your own cause. I think people are forgetting the mandate that the SNP MPs were elected on. I see no real surge in support for independence at the moment, nor do I expect any. SNP MPs have to bide their time, and put as much pressure as possible on the Tories, and wait for the consequences of Brexit to kick in imo. At the same time, the prospectus for independence should be updated.

I don't see why. It's almost immaterial if a few seats are lost; a majority is all that's needed. To be honest, it's hard to see where they'd be weakened though. The SNP/indy support would be galvanised but the unionist parties would still have to fight each other and split their vote.

James do you suspect blocking the great repeal bill and effectively going on strike might be the first option. The other is to withdraw the MP's from WM making Scotland self governing. I don't think Sturgeon would go to the polls as we already have a mandate from parliament.

Withdrawing the MP'S is a good idea. Saves public money. They are a waste of space in any case. 129 MSP'S and what do they all do to justify their salaries. Most nat sis I speak to agree there are far too many. 60 MSP'S and local councillors can run the show nae bother.

The troll calls Scottish people "jocks", advocates arming Leave campaigners and arbitrary deportations, claimed Jo Cox's husband was a fascist, uses racial and ethnic slurs, pretends to be Labour (badly) while espousing far-right racist hate speech, praises Theresa May and the Tories, and displays a perverted and poisonous obsession with Scotland's First Minister & her predecessor.

If the UK Government tries to delay the referendum beyond the next Holyrood election (presumably in the hope of a unionist majority), I would suggest that the SNP and Greens should campaign on a manifesto of declaring independence if after that election they can command a majority in Holyrood.

This would be similar to the way in which many countries have declared independence.

This Natcen survey being used to prop up the argument needs some analysis. It's doing the rounds at the moment to prove that the majority of Scots want the Brexit deal: http://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/40KT-55A-Brx1t-r%C2%A3p0rt_V5.pdf Yes, 16 and 17 year olds were not part of the survey and two questions were asked earlier. And here's article from The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/29/nicola-sturgeon-touch-scots-brexit-poll-shows-support-theresa/

Usual shit from GWC. It was WM mp's withdrawing not Holyrood MSP's you absolute dim wit. Why would they withdraw their MSP's from the parliament in which they are in government. Honestly just keep quiet and let others have a reasoned , informed debate.

You need some clarity in yer heid fuckwitt. I did not suggest withdrawing MSP'S I suggested cutting back on their numbers as they are not all required and it would save taxpayers money. Are you the best the numpty nat sis can offer. Hope so idiot.

" Don't forget that this is a moral issue and not just strategic. Many people voted No in 2014 in good faith, after being told that it was the only way of retaining their EU citizenship. An overwhelming majority of the Scottish public then voted to retain their EU citizenship last June. If we tacitly accept May's ability to veto a referendum, even just for a few years, that citizenship is going to be stripped away from those people for a prolonged spell, in blatant contravention of the immaculate double mandate in favour of EU membership that has been obtained. That is unacceptable, and I see no particular reason why we should accept it."

I noticed Jackson Carlaw making the "argument" that because Scotland's Future warned of an EU referendum, then people voted No in the knowledge that it might mean leaving the EU, even if every Scottish constituency voted to Remain.

To which I respond: the SNP's manifesto contained an explicit manifesto commitment that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold a referendum in those exact circumstances. The result was the largest mandate than any party in the history of devolution.

So, if Scots voted No knowing that leaving the EU was a possibility, then Scots voted SNP knowing that an SNP government would call an indyref in a Scotland Remain/UK Leave situation.

As per bloody usual, the only time the Tories ever cared about the Sovereign Will of the Scottish People was on the 18th of September 2014.

I noticed Jackson Carlaw making the "argument" that because Scotland's Future warned of an EU referendum, then people voted No in the knowledge that it might mean leaving the EU, even if every Scottish constituency voted to Remain.

Yeah, I've seen a few of the denser Tories pushing that one.

"You said that voting No would risk our place in the EU, and we said that was nonsense. You turned out to be right. So ha!"

The Scottish referendum was about remaining in the Union. Us working class understood that. The EU referendum was a British referendum and us working class understood that. Are you nat sis really thick in the heid?

On the question of SLAB being the new Brexiters, I think their positioning is more to do with the fact that they want to re-claim second place in front of the Tories, so it is all about outdoing the Tories in their unionism.

Why else would Kezia have gone from a maybes aye maybes no stance of last year when questioned about independence.

I wonder whether one option is to submit Scotland's right to self-determination, passed by Holyrood in line with UN law to the European Court of Jurisdiction, which will still hold sway legally over the UK until it formally leaves the EU in 2019.

It would be so sweet to see the ECJ ruling againt the UK.That would be a huge international embarassment to Perfidious Albion, and richly deserved as well. Having such international justification for Self-determination for Scotland would then surely make independence a mere formality.

The troll calls Scottish people "jocks", advocates arming Leave campaigners and arbitrary deportations, claimed Jo Cox's husband was a fascist, uses racial and ethnic slurs, pretends to be Labour (badly) while espousing far-right racist hate speech, praises Theresa May and the Tories, and displays a perverted and poisonous obsession with Scotland's First Minister & her predecessor.

The troll calls Scottish people "jocks", advocates arming Leave campaigners and arbitrary deportations, claimed Jo Cox's husband was a fascist, uses racial and ethnic slurs, pretends to be Labour (badly) while espousing far-right racist hate speech, praises Theresa May and the Tories, and displays a perverted and poisonous obsession with Scotland's First Minister & her predecessor.

There are no options for challenging Theresa May on this. The courts will rule against you and an illegitimate referendum will carry as much weight as SNP supporter Brian Soutar's homophobic 'referendum'.

Theresa May also has the Edinburgh Agreement on her side as well as the result of the independence referendum we just had. So, moral high ground in the bag as well. Not that she needs it - she's the boss (or, rather, QE2 is - but I don't reckon she feels any differently about it).

Sometimes, the answer is no. Most people learn this when they are children. Get used to it.

Mrs May refusing a referendum on the basis that Westminster is sovereign would simply return us to the position that a majority of Scottish MPs elected on an independence platform would constitute a mandate.

The troll calls Scottish people "jocks", advocates arming Leave campaigners and arbitrary deportations, claimed Jo Cox's husband was a fascist, uses racial and ethnic slurs, pretends to be Labour (badly) while espousing far-right racist hate speech, praises Theresa May and the Tories, and displays a perverted and poisonous obsession with Scotland's First Minister & her predecessor.

The reality is that England will never accept Scotland (or anyone else for that matter) as an equal partner in their union.Now that May and her merry cohorts have cleared that matter up,Scots and the other countries of the EU have to decide what to do about that situation.In our case,we either roll over and accept that or tell England what it can do with it's "union" and go our own way.This time it is not just about money,fundamental issues of democracy are now at stake and Scots will have to decide what sort of country they want to live in.

The troll calls Scottish people "jocks", advocates arming Leave campaigners and arbitrary deportations, claimed Jo Cox's husband was a fascist, uses racial and ethnic slurs, pretends to be Labour (badly) while espousing far-right racist hate speech, praises Theresa May and the Tories, and displays a perverted and poisonous obsession with Scotland's First Minister & her predecessor.

The troll calls Scottish people "jocks", advocates arming Leave campaigners and arbitrary deportations, claimed Jo Cox's husband was a fascist, uses racial and ethnic slurs, pretends to be Labour (badly) while espousing far-right racist hate speech, praises Theresa May and the Tories, and displays a perverted and poisonous obsession with Scotland's First Minister & her predecessor.

The troll calls Scottish people "jocks", advocates arming Leave campaigners, claimed Jo Cox's husband was a fascist, uses racial and ethnic slurs, pretends to be Labour (badly) while espousing far-right racist hate speech, praises Theresa May and the Tories, and displays a perverted and poisonous obsession with Scotland's First Minister & her predecessor.

Interesting to see the endlessly repeated claim that the Yoons would boycott an, "unofficial," referendum and therefore render it illegitimate. Would they really be able to resist voting when the alternative is a Norwegian style 98% yes vote?

Refusing to take part doesn't render a free and fair referendum irrelevant. It just renders you irrelevant.

The troll calls Scottish people "jocks", advocates arming Leave campaigners, claimed Jo Cox's husband was a fascist, uses racial and ethnic slurs, pretends to be Labour (badly) while espousing far-right racist hate speech, praises Theresa May and the Tories, and displays a perverted and poisonous obsession with Scotland's First Minister & her predecessor.

Perhaps the may just say if they refuse to negotiate that they will have a advisory referendum and implement the out come. So for example if it was yes to independence they would declare UDI (in the scottish parliament and Westminster) after the parliament ratifies the referendum outcome. Which as far as I can work out is the constitutional outcome of any referendum any way. I don't see how the unionist parties could boycott the referendum then as if they did they would be only abstaining which is a legitimate choice and if they did I do see how they could then blame that independence wasn't valid as in this scenario the scottish gov and parliament would just be implementing the wishes of the scottish people.

The Nat sis have to vent their wind but that is the history of losers who hate the ballot box. Their egos go before them. The working class are stupid and dinnae vote whit we clever people telt them tae. Knickerless and Kim Jung Eck will go down in history as crawlers and German glove puppets.

The troll calls Scottish people "jocks", advocates arming Leave campaigners and arbitrary deportations, claimed Jo Cox's husband was a fascist, uses racial and ethnic slurs, pretends to be Labour (badly) while espousing far-right racist hate speech, praises Theresa May and the Tories, and displays a perverted and poisonous obsession with Scotland's First Minister & her predecessor.

Die Kleine Hexen Knickerless threatens to torpedo brexit legislation.What would the Herald do without her. A story a day threatening this or that.Who is the tyrant James? The fud does not accept the outcome of the Scottish referendum or the brexit vote.

The troll calls Scottish people "jocks", advocates arming Leave campaigners and arbitrary deportations, claimed Jo Cox's husband was a fascist, uses racial and ethnic slurs, pretends to be Labour (badly) while espousing far-right racist hate speech, praises Theresa May and the Tories, and displays a perverted and poisonous obsession with Scotland's First Minister & her predecessor.